Emily F. Regier is a Ph.D. candidate in the Political Science Department at the University of Pennsylvania, working at the nexus of public law, American politics, and political theory. Her research seeks to locate different models of legitimate judicial decision making – that is, different views of how judges should judge – within wider political lenses or worldviews shaped by intellectual paradigms and historical and institutional contexts. Emily focuses, in particular, on a midcentury school of thought known as Legal Process Theory, which positions judicial decision making as a complement to democratic decision making, such that judges aim to clarify and advance citizens’ shared values, while leaving space for popular views to develop through democratic processes. She also studies powerful critiques of Legal Process Theory and of liberal legalism more generally, especially those lodged by Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, and radical feminist scholars.
Emily has a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she served as an editor of the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review. Before going to graduate school, she clerked for a federal district court judge and practiced law in a large firm in California.